Movie assembles a classic cast of character from old crime movies. Nice to see their faces(even if for only a few moments), but this movie is a piece of crap. And very poorly written. Some of the most unimaginative dialogue ever. I spent 105 minutes rolling my eyes.

It wasn't me it DJ:

Quote

Quote from: dave jenkins on January 02, 2011, 02:19:04 PMThe Outfit (1973) 8/10. Robert Duvall gets out of the pen only to find that he's #1 with a bullet on The Outfit's Hit Parade. Seems the bank he went up for was Mob owned, and The Outfit doesn't think his jail sentence was punitive enough. Deciding the best defense is a good offense, Bob recruits Joe Don Baker and Karen Black to help him take on The Organization. So effective is his strategy--robbing each of The Syndicate's high yield operations--that he gets the personal attention of head man Robert Ryan (in his last screen role). In the gun-battle climax Ryan asks, "Can we deal?" and Duvall replies with "Too late!" and some high-caliber punctuation.

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!

Re: Li'l Duce's Reviews Palace« Reply #440 on: July 14, 2015, 03:26:08 PM » The Outfit (1973) I read the novel a couple of times, but I'm not sure I had seen the movie. I probably did. A good one, though not exceptional because The Outfit itself doesn't look so powerful. That the last of the independents can win so easily make the organization look like a bunch of nincompoops. Anita O'Day's only feature? 7/10

Two directed by Henri Decoin, both with Jean Gabin, both part of the Gaumont retro at MoMA.

Razzia sur la chnouf (Razzia) [Drug Raid] (1955) 7/10. DCP. Marcel Dalio, the drug kingpin of Paris, enlists Gabin’s help to fire up his operation and make it more efficient. Dalio installs Gabin in a restaurant/club to provide cover for his illicit operations. Gabin’s first order of business: seduce the 22-year old girl at the cash register (which he accomplishes in one move). The film's late twist-reveal is well camouflaged but obvious nonetheless. Lino Ventura plays William Conrad to Albert Rémy’s Charles McGraw (i.e. they’re The Killers).

La vérité sur Bébé Donge / The Truth of Our Marriage (1952) 8/10. 35mm print. As he lies in a hospital, possibly dying from arsenic administered by his own wife (Danielle Darrieux), a philandering industrialist (Gabin) struggles to understand why she would have wanted to kill him. Cue flashbacks. Nice double-downer ending, though. Based on a novel by Georges Simenon.

Logged

That's what you get, Drink, for not appreciating the genius of When You Read This Letter.

Nice! I've got to see that one, never really dug too deep into Soderbergh's work as a director. I've heard that one mentioned specifically several times for Coates' editing. Soderbergh's The Limey has similar unique editing throughout the whole film.

Sometimes I doubt an editor's real importance... If 10 different very good editors cut the same movie, how different would each cut be? Would any really be that much better than one or the other? Sure there's the Schoonmakers and the Dede Allens and the Alan Heims (not as much of a household name - but an excellent editing filmography), but what about the thousands of others? Does the talent and style of most editors just peak at a certain point?

i spend my entire work week editing - primarily corporate videos to pay the bills - but also some more significant documentaries and short films.... ask myself these questions a lot.

Furthermore ...for both cinematographers and editors (& other trades)...I often wonder how often they provide true creative value and how often they're more of a tool for the director. I've worked on some stuff where I'd say my contributions heavily affected and sometimes really created the final outcome, and others where I was more just "someone to put the pieces together" without really any creative say.

Hell or High Water (2016) - 8/10One of the best movies this year. Drink is right that it's similar to and not as good as No Country, but while comparable it's still definitely waaaay different. The best part is how it avoids what the trailer suggests - "a sad dark southern dramatic family crime drama about poor people", a trend that's been happening with awful indie movies the past few years (Place Beyond the Pines, Out of the Furnace, etc.). It has the potential be like those, but instills enough subtle humor and silliness to make it feel different. Also, the director handles everything with else subtly too - nothing too fancy, nothing that stands out in a distracting way - the focus is the realistic-feeling story. It has the modern day dynamic of a classic buddy movie.

Sometimes I doubt an editor's real importance... If 10 different very good editors cut the same movie, how different would each cut be? Would any really be that much better than one or the other? Sure there's the Schoonmakers and the Dede Allens and the Alan Heims (not as much of a household name - but an excellent editing filmography), but what about the thousands of others? Does the talent and style of most editors just peak at a certain point?

i spend my entire work week editing - primarily corporate videos to pay the bills - but also some more significant documentaries and short films.... ask myself these questions a lot.

Furthermore ...for both cinematographers and editors (& other trades)...I often wonder how often they provide true creative value and how often they're more of a tool for the director. I've worked on some stuff where I'd say my contributions heavily affected and sometimes really created the final outcome, and others where I was more just "someone to put the pieces together" without really any creative say.

A few comments by Tony Lawson in the books I mentioned earlier...

On editing Barry Lyndon (Kubrick):

"I was very much a pair of hands."

On editing "Cross of Iron" (Peckinpah):

"I know I hit Sam with that [scene], because he called everyone in to see it."

"[Nic Roeg] came to one of the screenings of 'Cross of Iron', afterwards he was very generous, he said: 'My God did you do that?'."

Personally, I absolutely love "Cross of Iron" for how it is cut, while I appreciate "Barry Lyndon" for how it is shot.

Yeah but we're talking about different styles. Peckinpah's art is mainly based on editing. I mean of course he knew how to direct but he's known and discussed for how his films are edited. It's one of these cases where the editing defines the style.

The problem with editing is of course the same as with the photography. Who is responsible for the edits? The director or the editor? Does the editor decide which shots are used and where to cut them, or does the director? Is the editor creative or does he only help to shape the director's vision with the director looking over his shoulders?

If I were a director I would try be every day in the editing room and to have complete control over the editing.

The problem with editing is of course the same as with the photography. Who is responsible for the edits? The director or the editor? Does the editor decide which shots are used and where to cut them, or does the director? Is the editor creative or does he only help to shape the director's vision with the director looking over his shoulders?

If I were a director I would try be every day in the editing room and to have complete control over the editing.

A few random notes on the topic:

There is no "fit for all" answer. Truffaut, after a few films, avoided going into the editing room: he just didn't like it. I also suspect his films didn't have tens of ways to be edited, he didn't have lots of coverage. Scorsese doesn't leave the editing room. Fincher, who's a control freak, now uses 2 teams of editors who begin to edit while he's still on set.

If you had told me that a few years ago about Fincher, I wouldn't have believed you. I'm a control freak too and I'd rather be in the editing room most of the time. But I think I understand it now: at my own little scale, for a 2 minutes viral dialogue scene, I once let the editor select the interesting takes by himself. This is a highly strategic thing to do and the guy was pretty young, but:

- I knew him and trusted him- it was quite simply shot: 2 cameras, not moving, giving us a close up and a wide shot of each actor for the whole scene, a few inserts of the items they interact with, and a few specific shots for the big turning points.- I knew I had exactly the coverage I wanted. We had shot a lot of takes and while I didn't remember exactly what was in each take, I just knew what I wanted and I knew I had it.

In this particular situation, where I knew my material well enough, I could let the editor do that by himself. If he hadn't selected the best take for each reaction and line, I would just have noticed it. During the whole editing process, we then had to look for alternative takes a couple times, but really, really rarely. I'd never have let him edited the film alone though.

It can really depend on your collaborators. If I worked with Walter Murch, I'd know the film would be better if I let him alone for a few days from time to time.

Last, when you spend too much time in the editing room, you get burried into little details, which is great, but you lose track of the pacing of the whole 2 hours movie. You can make a lot of scenes that work great by themselves but editing is a lot more about getting the whole thing work than all the little moments.

Touchez pas au grisbi (1954) 9/10. Watching a lot of Jean-and-Lino pictures lately so decided to give this one another go. It's almost flawless. All of the action is saved for the end, which is no problem if you aren't expecting an action picture anyway. What it has a lot of is Gangster Glamour: suits (Gabin wears 4 different double-breasters in the course of the film), food (I can never watch this without wishing for some late-night pâté of my own), drink, cars, and broads. Who wouldn't want to be a gangster under these conditions? Includes an early Jeanne Moreau sighting.

Logged

That's what you get, Drink, for not appreciating the genius of When You Read This Letter.

Touchez pas au grisbi (1954) 9/10. Watching a lot of Jean-and-Lino pictures lately so decided to give this one another go. It's almost flawless. All of the action is saved for the end, which is no problem if you aren't expecting an action picture anyway. What it has a lot of is Gangster Glamour: suits (Gabin wears 4 different double-breasters in the course of the film), food (I can never watch this without wishing for some late-night pâté of my own), drink, cars, and broads. Who wouldn't want to be a gangster under these conditions? Includes an early Jeanne Moreau sighting.

Seems Gabin spends more time avoiding the broads than banging them. He'd rather spend late nights with his buddy than his broad. Gay subtext, anyone?

I agree with the 9/10. Very good movie

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

Seems Gabin spends more time avoiding the broads than banging them. He'd rather spend late nights with his buddy than his broad. Gay subtext, anyone?

Huh? Nights might be for the boys, but afternoons are definitely for the broads. Remember his American girlfriend, Betty? The film clearly presents them having a nooner--one that doesn't end until the sun goes down. And then the woman banging his uncle can't possibly get away during the night: if they're making it, as the film suggests they are, they have to be getting together in the day also. It's just that the gangster world is upside down in terms of everything including schedules--business is done at night, fucking takes place in the day.

Logged

That's what you get, Drink, for not appreciating the genius of When You Read This Letter.

Who knew FoL board was such a strong avenue for editing book references?

Specifically in terms of montage sequences, these two bilingual Serbian/English books essentially consisting of interviews with and articles by Slavko Vorkapich are also fascinating (albeit pretty hard to obtain):